Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parliamentary Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Laguna Hills tables updated rules of decorum after council debates Rosenberg’s vs. Robert’s rules
Summary
After an extended discussion about adopting updated rules of decorum and parliamentary procedure, Laguna Hills City Council voted unanimously to continue consideration of proposed City Council Policy 115, citing need for more comparison and education on Rosenberg’s versus Robert’s rules and concerns over debate-cutoff thresholds.
City staff presented a proposed resolution to adopt updated City Council Policy 115 — Rules of Decorum and Procedure — at the Laguna Hills City Council meeting on March 25. The staff report said the current rules were last updated in 1996 and that the draft policy was prepared to align meeting procedures with the Ralph M. Brown Act and recent changes in state law.
The presentation explained the draft policy includes six categories of changes — Brown Act consistency, updated disorderly-conduct language, clarified public-comment procedures (including electronic comments), agenda management language and a recommendation to adopt Rosenberg’s Rules of Order (a simplified parliamentary code endorsed by the California League of Cities) by reference. "Most of what's contained in the proposed updated policy is actually reflective of how the Laguna Hills City Council has always operated," staff said.
Several councilmembers raised procedural and substantive concerns. Councilmember Wheeler argued the proposal was "much much too large to approve tonight," saying a single-line reference to a chosen parliamentary code might be simpler than a lengthy new policy. Councilmember Mathis, who described himself as a "parliamentary procedure nerd," said Rosenberg’s covers the essential procedures and would allow meetings to run without excessive technicality. Councilmember Cassidy and others urged more study and a side-by-side comparison, noting Rosenberg’s is about six pages while Robert's Rules is much longer and more technical.
A substantive point of contention focused on how debate can be cut off. Some councilmembers noted Rosenberg’s requires a higher threshold (two-thirds) to end debate in certain cases, which on a five-member council could require four votes — a higher bar than a simple majority and a practical consideration for a small legislative body.
Councilmembers also asked staff to clarify that rules addressing disorderly conduct apply to members of the public, not to seated councilmembers, and sought an explicit warning/notice approach before any ejection for disruptive behavior, consistent with state law.
After discussion, a motion to continue the item to a future meeting so members could review materials and receive comparative analysis passed unanimously by roll call. No policy was adopted at the March 25 meeting.
The council asked staff to provide a concise comparison of Rosenberg’s and Robert’s rules and to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the alternatives before the item returns for formal consideration.
